THE DILKE SCANDAL. HOW SIR CHARLES'S. INNOCENCE IS TO BE PROVED. PERSECUTION BY THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE." (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) London, December 16.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 241, 11 February 1888, Page 7 (Supplement)

THE DILKE SCANDAL. HOW SIR C H A R L E S'S. INNOCENCE IS TO BE PROVED. PERSECUTION BY THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE." (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) London, December 16.

SirCiias. Dilke, having cominced everyone for whose good opinion he cares of his innocence with regard to tho hopelessly mismanaged Crawford case, is gradually reasserting his position in the world of politics. He has spoken at scvera public meetings lately with marked effect and his articles in the 'Fortnightly on " The Present State of European Politics " and ' ' The British Army " are by all parties admitted to be masterly. Every reasonable (not to say charitable) person would be only too glad to pass a sponge over tho past. Of course, however, the saintly Stead won'b let us. Every time Sir Charles opens his mouth the editor of tho "Pal! Mall Gazette " opens his and spits out some pornographic libel. Even guilb would not justify such persecution and Sir Charles (as Shead must now know) i$ innocent. Strange as it may seem, both Sir Charles and Lady Dilke rely on Mrs Crawford oventnally vindicating the character she so ruthlessly smirched. Others who know the lady also consider this by no means unlikely. If it should come about let us all pray, that as Scad has seared tho unfortunate statesman's heart with cruel jibes and vile inuendoes and wicked suggestions so may he be disgraced, humiliated and ruined. I give the following extracts to show the 7 coarse, prurient and malevolent ttyle of the P.M.G. :—

Sir Charles Dilke at Home Again. Sir Charles Dilke would have done well ft) apare the Liberal party the disagreeable* reminder thab it also has had its HughesHallett, and that, unless the sense of public decency is stronger with us than on the Ministerial side of the House, our Hughes-Halletb, unrepentant and ashamed, will force his way back into the arena. Sir Charles Dilke, who ib seems is still president of a Liberal Club somewhere in Harrow-road, addressed a meeting on Saturday at which the Liberal candidate for the division, Mr Greenwood, waa not ashamed to appear. Why a Liberal candidate should consent to smirch his good name and destroy his chance of success by accepting the co-respondent in the Crawford divorce case as his political sponsor, is one of those things which are equally difficult to understand whether approached either from a political or a moral standpoißt.

The Fire Questions. Sir Charles Dilke discoursed about five questions, such as the army, local Government, etc. His hearers were thinking of five different questions — 1. Whether by allowing him to preside over the meeting they were nob condoning aggravated and unnatural adultery, perjury, and subornation of perjury ? 2. Whether a man who cannot be believed on his oath in a court of law can be accepted as a safe guide in questions of politics ? 3. How the solemn declarations againsb taking any part in public life until he had vindicated his roputation could be reconciled with his appearance in the chair ? 4. Whether Fanny is still \indiscoverable, and, if not, why is she nofc produced ? 5. Whether the appearance at? chairman of a political meeting of one who ought to be in the dock on a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury is calculated to further the cause of public morality and the triumph of Liberal principles ? Why should Sir Charles Dilke force people to ask these questions ? If he were penitent and confessed, it) would be another matter. Bub he is not penitent, and he has nob confessed. Until he does he has no right to expect absolution.

Tlie Two Erring M.P.'s A correspondent in difficulty about the faith that is in him writes to us as follows : — " Will you kindly state why Colonel Hughes- Hallet was gibbeted in the "Pall Mall Gazette" if a man like Mr Borlase (lato M.F.) is lot off without] comment, both concerned in what are styled " painful disclotures ?" A Conservative friend — knowing me to be a constant reader of the "Pall Mall,"— taunts me with the fact, and says tho probable reason is that the Colonel is a lank Consorvative, while Mr Borlase isagood Radical." Our correspondent's question is very easily answered ; indeed, he answered ifa by implication himself when he described. Mr Borlase as "late M.P." That makes all the difference. Mr Borlase, as soon as he felt that his sins hacl^ found him out, immediately resigned his seat. Had Colonel Hughes-Hallet done the same, he would never have been " gibbeted ' by us. But he did not. Therefore he was " gibbetted." The pillory is meant for unrepentant sinners only.